Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Path: msuinfo!caen!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!orchard.la.locus.com!prodnet.la.locus.com!jfr
From: jfr@locus.com (Jon Rosen)
Subject: Re: VCR+ code question: Was it cracked and legal action taken?
Message-ID: <1992Jan07.235209.01019078@locus.com>
Organization: Locus Computing Corp, Los Angeles
References: <1992Jan6.160219.3580@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <13665@oasys.dt.navy.mil>
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1992 23:52:09 GMT
Lines: 91

In article <13665@oasys.dt.navy.mil> curt@kcwc.uucp (Curt Welch) writes:
>In sci.crypt, gurney@galaxy.cps.msu.edu (Eddy J. Gurney) writes:
>>I just got done reading an article in 'sci.electronics' that said
>>three people at Berkeley had cracked the entire VCR+ code scheme.
>>When GemStar (the makers of VCR+) found out about this, they took
>>some massive legal action, since apparently, the newspapers and
>>TV Guides that print the VCR+ codes have to PAY GemStar to print the
>>codes! So something must be going on.  Does anyone have more information
>>on this?
 
  Personally, I can't believe that GemStar has to pay ANYONE to print
  the codes.  GemStar makes its money by selling the VCR+ controller
  to consumers and licensing the scheme to other VCR manufacturers
  who are starting to include it in their VCRs for sale.  GemStar
  may sell a program to the publishers which they use to create the
  numbers but even that is doubtful.  GemStar *needs* thepublishers
  to stay in business.  For instance, if the L.A. Times stopped printing
  the codes, then people in L.A. would have less use for a VCR+ (or no
  use if TV Guide did the same).  I don't see that L.A. Times could
  be particularly concerned about GemStar.  In fact, I would not be
  surprised if GemStar had to pay the L.A. Times.  It is advertising,
  is it not?

>This rumor mill is getting out of hand.
>
>I am one of the three people, and I'm not "at Berkeley".  Only Ken
>is from Berkeley.  I live in VA.
>
>We have not broken the entire code, but we have broken a lot of it.
>
>Gemstar has not yet taken ANY legal action.  There is NO law suit.
>There have been no restraining orders.
>
>Gemstar has however contacted us, and asked us not to release our
>information.  This is why Ken removed his file from anonymous ftp
>access.  Gemstar feels that they have legal rights to the algorithm
>and/or the codes, and/or coding scheme.  I have agreed, for now, not to
>release our decoding program.  We are currently talking to the people
>at Gemstar (and to other people about our legal rights and the possible
>liability we would be creating if we released our information).
 
  What liability?  Has GemStar received a patent?  Have you used any
  of their work or copied it?  Have you hired away one of their developers
  and used his knowledge without permission?  If not the first, then there
  is no basis for a patent infringement suit.  If not the second, then there
  is limited basis (if any) for a copyright infringement suit. If not the
  last, then there is not basis for a trade secrets suit. 
 
  Seems to me they are trying to muscle you.  Shouldn't work.

>Either we will reach some type of agreement with Gemstar and not
>release our program - in which case you will have to figure out
>the codes on your own - or we will decide to release it.

  That is, of course, your business.  I'd try and get as much money
  from them as I could if I was going to agree to withdraw :-)

>Gemstar has very little legal ground to stand on, but they do have a
>lot to loose and are willing to spend money to try and protect their
>company.  It is clear that they could take us to court on multiple
>issues - and probably would if we release our program without first
>giving them a chance to talk with us.  It is very unlikely however that
>they could win any court case.
 
  Okay, you understand this too.  You are right on, and I think your
  approach of talking with them is useful.

>Gemstar is not doing anything underhanded.  They are just doing what I
>would expect any company to do.  They are trying to get paid for their
>work and they're trying to keep the right to profit from their work.
>Being a programmer who has been involved in starting multiple software
>companies, I know how hard it is to be successful.  And I think they
>have come up with a great idea and a great product - one that they
>deserve to profit hansomly from.
>
>They just have to convence me that they have the right to prevent me
>from releasing my work - which they are in the process of trying to
>do.
 
  What ever you decide to do, should be fine with everyone else.  I
  expect if you decide to withdraw on *unspecified* terms, you will
  get the traditional *sell-out, cop-out, censored* ranting and
  raving from the nattering nabobs of networkism for a while.  There
  are those that seem to think they are *entitled* to everyone
  else's work for no charge.  That, of course, is really up to the person
  who provides the work.  I am delighted by those who agree to 
  distribute their stuff for free.  I do not oppose those who feel they
  should be compensated.  

  Jon Rosen

